Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (39539)	4/10/2000 5:00:00 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Ten, There are two things that help Coppermine edge out Athlon in performance: on-die cache, and RDRAM. I don't think on-die cache alone is enough; I certainly wouldn't want to run a 1 GHz Coppermine on a 440BX (if the FSB multiplier even allowed it). Have you read the article in Tom's hardware, where they did just that and found it to be significantly faster than the i820 system? www7.tomshardware.com Scumbria

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (39539)	4/10/2000 7:29:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 93625

In return, 2 other points: In Intel's own published specmarks, at www.spec.org, the 800 cumine has almost exactly the same performance with PC100/ 100 mhz FSB / BX chipset as it does with the 820/ 133mhz FSB / Rambus memory. As for the PIII/Althon comparison, the 1ghz Athlon is hampered by 1/3 speed cache. This has nothing to do with Rambus either. As far as the validity of Tom's overclocked BX, you can make vague references as to how somebody at Intel says it isn't valid all you want, but it's only 33% faster timing, and the BX is 2 years old, isn't it? How much faster are Intel's circuits on the other side of the chipset compared to 2 years ago? Somewhat in excess of 33% faster, it seems. Cheers, Dan.